At 07:00 12/2/2008, SIP wrote: >Doug wrote: >> At 18:56 12/1/2008, Tilghman Lesher wrote: >> >On Monday 01 December 2008 06:21:33 pm Doug wrote: >> >> We tell our customers that they are not allowed to >> >> download copyrighted material. >> > >> >So your customers are only allowed to download public domain >> >material? That kind of restricts the amount of information >> >available on the Internet. Nitpick: just about everything, including >> >this email, is copyrighted by somebody. Forbidding the download >> >of copyrighted works is not only a draconian policy, but may actually >> >violate several copyright laws (you're interfering with a copyright >> >owner's right to distribute his/her/their works, and courts are >> >generally not very sympathetic with your position). >> >> Oops! Didn't mean to start a fire here. >> >> I meant to say "illegal copyrighted material". Also, if they >> are using up hundreds of Internet connections, we can see >> that. It essentially causes a Denial of Service situation >> for other users on that leg of our wireless network. The system >> supposedly has rate limiting, but seems to get overloaded when >> someone goes completely nuts with BitTorrent. We are working >> on ways to limit the number of simultaneous connections. >> >> When we get a copyright infringment notice from our upstream >> provider, we are compelled to reprimand the user. I don't >> think we have sent a customer to the "shower" even if they >> had several notices. >> >> "Net Neutrality" is great in principle. But ISP's need to >> somehow control those few percentage of users who suck down >> a huge majority of the bandwidth. It's dollars and cents. >> >> Es tut mir leid für das Durcheinander meine Brüder! >> >> >> >This is the classic logical fallacy that people seem to perpetuate when >reporting news about P2P activity. > >ISPs oversubscribe. It's a common practice, and reasonably valid. But >when you oversubscribe, you use a model based on 'projected' use of the >available circuits and bandwidth. If you have a user who pays for a >circuit that you've advertised as an X Mb line, and he uses X Mb ALL the >time, he's using what he's paying for. If you then proceed to tell him >that he can't do that, you're either wrong or you're not being up front >enough with your pricing and marketing materials. You can't then proceed >to blame the customer for use you did not anticipate. > >Imagine a farmer who sells tomatoes. He's promised you a bushel, but he >gets a harvest of only so many. You walk up to the counter just after >he's sold all of his tomatoes to someone and he tells you "Sorry. There >are no more tomatoes because that customer before you just 'stole' them >all from you. He's abusing his privileges by buying up my whole crop." > >Now whose fault is it that you don't get the tomatoes you want? Is it >the customer's fault for buying all the tomatoes the farmer sold him? Or >is it the farmer's fault for selling them? > >The same works with the ISP vs P2P argument. If the ISPs were up-front >about saying that they do not intend for you to actually USE the >bandwidth you think you're paying for, I would say they had a leg upon >which to stand. However, hiding this information from the customer and >then blaming the customer when he does what he believes is well within >his rights... it may play well in the media, but it's bad for the whole >system and is incredibly divisive.
Yep. In our contract we say things like "shared", "best efforts", etc. If you want a dedicated pipe with guaranteed bandwidth, you gotta pay a hefty price. _______________________________________________ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users